Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Preview

With the new breed of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras becoming ever-more popular, manufacturers face a development dilemma. It's not enough to simply churn out camera bodies; to convince potential buyers you have an attractive system, it's essential to provide a decent range of lenses too. But lens systems are hard to establish; concentrate your design resources on affordable lenses for enthusiasts and you risk your system not appealing to the high-end users who are likesly to buy multiple lenses. Focus instead on high-end exotica, and you risk making the step up from the kit-zoom look too daunting (and expensive) for the majority of users.

The 45mm F1.8 is a lovely lens precisely because it offers great image quality while offering an attractive balance of size, price and weight. However, its mainly plastic construction makes it clear that there are trade-offs being made. By contrast, the 75mm features very solid-feeling all-metal construction and those rarely-inexpensive words 'Made in Japan' etched into the body. Sure enough the 75mm is expected to sell for more than twice the price of the 45mm.

Olympus describes the 75mm as a 'high grade portrait lens.' With its 150mm-equivalent field of view it's a little bit longer than the traditional 85-135mm range, that was classically used for portraiture on 35mm cameras. Its minimum focusing distance of 0.84m means you can get pretty close to your subject, however the long effective focal length limits how close you can sensibly work with people (because your narrow field-of-view gives quite a tight crop when working close to your subject).

The F1.8 maximum aperture provides decent control over depth of field, too, offering the ability to blur-away distracting backgrounds and focus attention on your subject. In this respect it behaves much like a 100mm F2.4 lens would on an APS-C camera, or a 150mm F3.5 lens on full frame. This makes it an attractive proposition for its primary purpose of photographing people.

The lens needn't just be used for portraiture, though. Olympus suggests it will also be useful for stage, studio and indoor sports work, and we see little reason to disagree with this. A 150mm-equivalent lens is still a useful thing to have in many circumstances, especially if it's as portable as the Olympus.

Comments

2015 now. Pretty clear there won't ever be a review. DPR is understaffed with a backlog of products to review.

In the fall of 2014, there were suggestions from the staff that the 40-150mm f2.8 PRO might get a review. Since the zoom and the 75mm prime overlap, I think it's likely the 75mm would at least get a mention in the zoom review.

Still no review. What's going on with you guys? I know it's embarassing but even if you review 18months after it's release - at least you'd have it in your archive for readers in the future. Come on - what about it.

It's around a year now.... and still no review. I suppose we will never see a full review for this lens. But enough serious websites have reviewed this lens by now that we don't need Dpreview to confirm what we already know. This is a spectacular lens.

Let me quote from SLRgear.com:

"There's a lot to like about the Olympus 75mm ƒ/1.8 M.Zuiko; simply amazing results for sharpness, great resistance to chromatic aberration, very low corner shading and near-zero distortion. Add in excellent build quality and good looks, and you have a package that's sure to please any photographer. The only sticking point might be the price - at around $900, it is an expensive optic. But seeing as at the time of writing there are no other lenses that offer this focal length and fast aperture setting, and given the exceptional performance, it's not surprising that Olympus is charging the premium price."

Now DPreview can go back to doing what they love to do most. Reviewing cell phones.

It would be great if dp-preview could go back to actually reviewing products. It's been months since anything truly helpful has appeared. I am just as good as the next guy at guessing what "might" come.

I have a piece of S--- sp-600uz and my operating system is windows 7 3GB memory DVD super multi DL drive intel pentium my equipment should be sufficent to run this camera...But am told to upgrade drivers did so and the camera will not turn on. Olympus wants 100.00 to fix it. I have used this a few times. But it won't turn on now. I am so mad that I invested in this and now i can't use it and it will cost me to fix it. I was going to get a better olympus camera but am soooo glad I did not. I will never buy another olympus product that is for sure. I will not pay to fix it either. It has been broken for awhile now as I just don't have time to waste on this. But would love to know what the problem with it is. It was brand new when it just one day would not turn on. Has always been keep in a very nice case so was never dropped as one olympus rep asked me.

I really want one but then again I also want the 20mm 1,7 & 45mm 1.8 along with pana 100-300 and olympus 9-18mm

However the price alone of these lenses makes it unrealistic for me to afford the 75mm and 100-300mm. Being Unemployed is not exactly a very profitable career, Especially since in my country photography is protected under law as a profession that you must have gone through years of studying to be allowed to work in the field.

Also when I started learning on my own photography I was always told 50mm is a perfect portrait lens, then people started saying 85mm is the perfect portrait lens and now im reading that 100mm, 135mm & 150mm are the perfect portrait lenses.

So simple question: which one is the perfect one?It seem's nobody knows, everyone seems to be biased.

The perfect portrait lens, like all things in photography, is dependent on you and your specific needs. One man's perfect lens may not work for another.

The suggestion of portrait FL between 50mm - 135mm refers to the FF equivalent and depends entirely on how you most often shoot portraits (head shots, head and shoulders only, full body, etc.) and what size imaging sensor you are using.

If you have more room to shoot and are on a m43 body, then a 75mm FL may work best for you. While 85mm on an APS-C may be best for another. FYI, 75mm m43=150mm FF; 85mm APS-C= 136mm FF.

The bottom line is to get out there and experiment with different FLs and find what works best for YOU.

Disclosure: 50mm on APS-C or 85mm FF is my personal choice. You are reasonably close to your subject without the distortion of bodily features that you get with lower FLs.

Hi Anepo, it's a question of your distance to the person to be photographed: With wide angle you're coming too close to the face making it look disproportional, with tele lens the face becomes flattened depending on the (long) distance. So, as to Olympus lenses the 45 mm should be best suited for your purpose. You could also use a full frame 50 mm with an adapter, but you'd better choose the original 45 mm which is small, delivers high quality and is not expensive. (Photographing full body in limited room the Panasonic 20mm could be helpful)The Olympus 75 mm is certainly a wonderful lens but with the disadvantages and limitations of a strong tele lens as for portraits.My advice to you as a beginner: Don't buy many lenses! Otherwise you will be carrying a heavy and hindering equipment. Your mind isn't able to get accustomed to many different viewing angles. A few lenses are better than many. And as a photographer concentrate on the one or two topics you're really interested in!

that's why there is a word such as professional photographer who could handle such a lens.

such lens is only for people who want and need and able to use them with efficiency. you don't need to be that grumpy just because people don't share your opinion.

besides, I can make such an effect on a small sensor P&S camera and do some post-processing work that would make a photograph appear to be taken by higher end cameras, including m4/3. now does that defeat the purpose of owning a 75mm as well?

No problem with a 1.2 lens but a face portrait taken with such a lens is rarely liked by the subject.

This type of lens, wide open (or nearly so) will work well with what looks like very smooth bokeh, in spite of the negative comments posted about it by people who have never tried it and will never try it.

Is this lens good enough for dpr to use this lens on all dpr studio shooting (for the m4/3 family)? Presently dpr uses another Oly lens and an adapter. Using this lens would make the whole studio m4/3 very native.

Why do we have to click three times to get to this stupid review? A 150mm equivalent is NOT a portrait lens anyway, 85 is quite enough, any more and you're stopping down too far to get depth of focus, into the diffraction range.

and also, what should "any more and you're stopping down too far to get depth of focus, into the diffraction range" mean ?

i own a 135 f2 and a 150 2.8 and i have no idea why i should stop down to a point where lens diffraction comes into the game ?^^

its about PERSPECTIVE, dont you get it ? ^^

the more tele the more flattering it is, did you even tried to read a book before posting that ?

i take portraits of my girlfriend and family members with a 50mm and portraits of clients with a 135mm. because if you make a headshot with a 50 the photo is very personal, which i dont allways want for clients, the longer the lens the more it gets a portrait for a client, the wider the lens, the more its obvious that i know the person.

the perspective is basically the angle of view. it's very important but less so when the depth of field is very shallow.

I think the angle of view is important because that's the way we can tell if 75/1.8 is a good lens compared with 35mm format lenses near 150/3.5 (the nearest I'm aware of is Leica M-mount 135/3.4, which looks better than 75/1.8 on MTF).

and if 75/1.8 does have a better design, Canon and Nikon can also use similar design concept to make their own 150/3.5 lenses, just like all the makers now use the same basic guideline that Canon have been using for more than 20 years (Olympasu have been doing it for at least 5 some years and they can do it quite well).

@DarkShift - it does, and it doesn't. Perspective is a function of distance, of course, but FOV determines the framing at a given distance. A headshot taken with an 85mm (equiv) will have to be taken from a closer distance that a 135-150mm (equiv).

And we need to keep in mind that this is an IF lens; it will have a shorter focal length as you focus in. "Classic" 35mm lenses under 200mm tended to be unit focus (the lens extends as you focus closer), so this lens will be approximately equivalent to a 135mm "classic" at typical tight portrait distances.

I cut my teeth back in the day with a 135mm Vivitar on various Minolta bodies. Did lots of portraits and concert work. Anybody who says that this focal length (equivalent) is not very useful.... Well, they should try it first.

People with a lot more knowledge of lens design can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is down to the lens being designed for a sensor as opposed to film, where the light needs to hit the sensor at a much straighter angle so as to minimise vignetting. I remember Leica using a sensor design with slightly offset sensels so people could still use their old lenses with minimal loss of performance.

I would also guess that this lens would perform much better wide open than an FD, but of course, we will have to wait until they have been compared in some capacity.

I think people were discussing about using old FD lenses on MFT via adapter. Now f3.5 doesn't then become f1.8 or you think it does?

To my experience, the old glass generally doesn't have very good performance wide open. Stopped down they can be excellent however.

By looking at the samples I think the Zuiko/1.8 will propably have excellent performance wide open, better than FA 77/1.8. If its marvellous then the high price would be justified. Otherwise maybe not.

do you know that lens design/formular has more to do with the angle of view than focal length which is really irrelevant? also lenses should normally perform best when used as it's designed.

mZD75/1.8 should by default compared to 150/3.5 because they have the same spec, of angle of view and aperture size.

mZD75/1.8 has a small aperture of only f/1.8 (about 42mm), way smaller than f/1.8 lenses for 35mm (83mm aperture) and this should be the most important factor behind any performance, and of all 4/3 lenses, that they are much easier to make.

Yes I know what you mean, but that's is not relevant to what the original poster speculated. In general lenses give their best performance at the frame center. So for some lenses (especially of not so good design) it is allright to do some cropping ;)

Your last sentence is not a general law. Apertures size for a given f-number depends on focal length. A lens with same focal length ie. 75mm/f1.8 lens has same aperture size regardless of the format.

I still don't understand, why this lens has to be that big. The Canon FD 85mm f1,8 was considerably smaller and had a 52mm filter thread. - and it was (is!) a very fine lens. Probably I'll try to buy one to use it with an FD adapter. Autofocus isn't really important for me. I'm already using the Canon FD 85mm f1,2 L on my 4/3 camera, but sometimes I'd like to have something a little smaller/lighter in my bag.

For one, it has to be 1cm longer, because the flange-back distance on µ4/3 is cm shorter. Other than that, it is a more advanced construction, with 10 lens elements rather than 6. There's a autofocus motor and an electric aperture mechanism, and control computers for those.

If you look at any manual focus lens, they are pretty much all much smaller than today's modern AF lenses. One reason is that auto focus motors and mechanisms take up more room than not having any auto focus motors and mechanisms.

And secondly, modern lens designs use more glass elements and more complex shapes to deliver better optical performance for today's demanding high-resolution sensors. For example, this Olympus 75mm f/1.8 has 10 elements in 9 groups. An old Canon FD 85mm f/1.8 had only 6 elements in 4 groups!

There is a lot less glass inside an old Canon FD 85mm f/1.8. Additionally, there's no internal AF focus components. It's no wonder the Canon FD 85mm f/1.8 is so much smaller.

Gotta love Olympus. They have so much emotional currency people with all sorts of cameras must weigh in and pass judgement on each and every move they make :)

This is be a fantastic lens, sharp wide open, great colour and contrast, it is TINY, i mean look at it. I will buy it the moment one is available and it will sit in my small shoulder bag with my other body, and 6 lenses. :) I have a lot of uses for this lens both for work and for play.

For all you people claiming 150mm is not portrait... hell even 12mm can be portrait, 1000mm can be portrait. Use your imagination, leave the muslin behind and experiment :)

Just to clear things up for some people: The focal length of a lens has no impact whatsoever regarding "flattening" of a photo or anything related to that. What makes a portrait "flat" is the distance to the subject. People equate focal length to subject distance, and that's the source of this common misconception.

So yes, 75mm on 4/3 IS THE SAME AS 150mm on a 36x24mm camera in terms of anything relating to the photographic result. Focal length in itself means nothing. Please stop saying "75mm is 75mm" like we are all morons. 75mm is not an angle of view.

What you say on the measurements is true and very precise. However, the equivalence debate is getting a bit weird, because if you look at cameras sold the APS-C should be the standard and not Full Frame (which used to be called 'small frame' in comparison to the earlier standard formats).

What you propose would be a more precise classification of lenses, but I fear people cannot imagine what that a 16.4*/pupil-42 lens would give them in terms of image result...

oh yes but it has an impact, because you allways use the focal lenght together with the sensor format of the system you are talking about.

and for sure the focal lenght plays a very big role in "flattening", because the focal lenth = angle of view, because when you talk about focal lenght you allways talk about a "system" and i for example know how big an µFT sensor is.

when we talk about lenses, its allways about getting the same stuff in the picture, and about the same sensor size

so when i want to make a headshot, the picture IS flatter with a 150 compared to a 50, because we all know we are talking about a portrait lens and we want the same stuff (head) in the picture with both lenses ^^

also we all know we are talking about µFT, and we know its not 1.8 but 2.8 and so on ...

I'm old 57 years italian photographer. I have used any analogic cameras. I remeber Hasselblad with lens "silver" like the Olympus, in this case, 75 mm. I dont' think problem when attached on "black" body Oly. No sure. Because is tres chic.And at time the lens is more more "accattivante". I reading that one user not buy "silver" lens because his body camera, is black...too crazy excuse moi mon ami. I repeat, silver is beautiful and very nice...

The Olympus 45 1.8, with it's 7-blade aperture, has really nice bokeh, and this new lens will likely have even better bokeh with it's rounded 9-blade diaphragm.

75mm (150mm in 35mm terms), a bit longer than the classical 85-135mm portrait lens, as a focal length was likely a conscious choice by Olympus as a 67mm (the classic 135mm) may have been too close in focal length to the cheaper 45 1.8.

Sorry, but for me the colour of the thing is a serious point. I haven't bought any of the Oly lenses that are mentioned in this preview, because of the colour of the things. All my camera bodies are black (except a white G3 that I bought by mistake) and to me, a silver lens on a black body is not discrete enough.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Calvin. I'm very into people/candid/travel photography, and silver lenses and bodies tend to jump at people much more than black ones. You don't have to be a fashionista to care about gear color, there are practical reasons why some photographers prefer black.

Remember Cartier Bresson, who used to black tape his cameras??? Would you say he's the "look at me" kind of guy?

As a pro, I have to agree to a point: it's distracting to your subject at times. The look of gear IS actually important in getting candid shots. And this would be useless for street photography.

That said, if I was in the M43 system, I'd have no choice but to buy this. Even though I don't think it's performance wide open is a step up from the 45. (at least based on the samples I've seen. Lots of CA of both--maybe even more than my 85/1.8, which is quite CA-tastic). Usable with a bit of post, and just a must have for isolation with the M43 system.

Really, I'd like to see an 85/1.0 in the M43 system. That would really quash some nay sayers on the subject of subject isolation.

Get some black paint. This lens will be worth the trouble. Or get a silver body. Practically speaking, silver stays cooler in the sun, reducing thermal effects on the glass elements, inner workings, etc. And you can find it in a dark closet too!

IMO, the narrow AoV on this lens will require a greater working distance between you and your subject than your average street photo lenses, which is why your subject will not (probably) notice you taking candid shots even with a silver lens.

OH, sorry about my earlier comment--I thought I had seen sample pics from this lens, but what I had seen were just more 45mm samples. Lets hope this exceeds the quality of those! I'm not sure why the 45 is so mediocre. The 12 is just phenomenal!

Not just samples online (and even if they were, it's not like a camera or bad technique adds CA), I've seen files from the 45/1.8 from an associate who returned it after being disappointed by the image quality. It's got pretty bad CA. And LoCA. No bueno.

I love big beautiful lenses, specially when they are not made from brass like a dumbell around ones neck. Aluminium for these sizes please. This beautiful Olympus lens makes me want to buy a m43, lets see how the IQ turns out.

As long as people think focal length is a measure of angle of view, this problem will never go away.

People don't seem to understand that using a camera for 30 years does not teach you physics, mathematics or signal processing.

People of no technical background: Please stop assuming that whatever the guy who taught you to use a camera in 1976 said will be the final word on photography forever. 35mm focal length on one format is still 35mm on another format, but focal length is not a measure of angle of view, and so the angle of view from a 35mm lens on one system will not be the same as the angle of view from a 35mm lens on another system. And the same goes for f-numbers and ISO sensitivities. That's just the way it is. No matter what the guy said. I'm the new guy now, listen to me instead.

If FOV is the apropos unit to use to describe the FOV of a lens across multiple formats, what unit should be used for OOF blur thats not f-stop since the same f-stop across different formats creates different OOF blur? b-stops (blur-stops)?

b-stop=f-stop * format_factorformat_factor = 135_horizontal/format_horizontal (lets just use 135 as the zero point since its the most ubiquitous)

Some function based on angle of view an aperture, yes. Quantifying depth of field is difficult, but some type of Light Capture Factor or something like that would be sufficient. After all, our understanding of how a certain ƒ-number looks at a certain focal length for a certain sensor format is just something we learn to quantify for ourselves, ƒ/whatever doesn't really say anything. Probably you would use a specification based on radians. Someone will work out a good standard for this.

The strengths of a new set of camera system specifications is also the weakness though: A camera manufacturer that sells lenses to be used on several formats need to have two sets of values for a lens.

Your method of calculating from 135 is also workable, though legacy-based. Just like one uses T-stop for cine lenses, you might use b-stop or a-stop or e-stop for non-135-systems, just to have a legitimate name for it.

All these arguments make me wish some people would have paid more attention in physics class.

Ultimately, though, they're only really useful for people comparing between systems: as a Four Thirds shooter, I know that ISO 400 is as noisy as it is, and a 75mm f/1.8 will give me so much DOF and angle of view, and that's good enough for me, since the most important thing to know is which lens to reach for to get the picture.

Yes, I know that's equivalent in "number of photons collected", angle of view, and DOF to ISO 1600 f/3.6 150mm, but that's only math that's important if I'm trying to compare systems.

Ok, shall we talk about horizontal, vertical, or diagonal field of view? How does this work with images of different aspect ratios?

Focal length and aperture work just fine, thank you. They are immutable figures. (well, we could throw in T-stops if we want to talk about actual speed too, but I digress) If the user can't figure out what aperture and focal length will mean to their images themselves, then no other more esoteric number will make sense either.

And despite all the yammering about diffraction, there are lenses that still look excellent stopped down past the diffraction point, and some that decidedly do not. THIS has more to do with lens design than "physical" limitations suggest, and is rarely discussed in any forums. Sometimes you NEED to stop down more than 5.6 on APS-C or 8 on FF. Some lenses do this better than others.

The FA 77mm f/1.8 consists of 7 lens elements in 6 groups,has no internal AF motor and relies on a slotted drive screw operated by the camera. This lens extends a little when focusing towards close distances. The optical formula of Olympus 75mm f/1.8 is comprised of 10 elements in 9 groups, has internal focus with AF motor.

You will get better illumination and most likely better corner performance. Olympus is doing this since 4/3 started. Just check their 35-100mm f2. They simply "oversize" lens a bit and result is obviously much better lens than if you design it so it "just covers 4/3 sensor".

(m)4/3 lenses also feature telecentric design which is a lot more important for digital sensors than it is for film for which the 77/1.8 was designed. For the same reason in general lenses designed for digital sensors tend to be bigger than film lenses, as the angle of light falling on the sensor has to be controlled more strictly.

A lot of fans of Oly with marketing inside the brain. FA77/1.8 is one of the best portrait lens in the world. It's funny to read about bokeh from man which never used FA77.Your sample is funny...It's not bokeh, it's aberration with image of bubbles.

The irregularities have to do with the subject matter, not something inherent to the lens. And that image certainly sells me on the quality of that lens!

EDIT: after looking closer, I take that back. Lots of LoCA and you're right, the bokeh has some funny business going on around the edges. And there are some ugly coma blobs. And it doesn't look as sharp as my Nikon 85/1.8D, which I'm pretty sure is an older design.

it's almost feels like olympus deliberately doesn't offer black ver of this lens (and the 12mm & 45mm) to crank sales of silver bodies. It worked rather well, the silver om-d sells as well as the black ver, something even olympus did not expect.

Even if it were similar to the silver 12-50mm... it has black focus and zoom rings and looks better. These solid silver jobs look like the old, cheap Kenko lenses for the early 2 and 3 megapixel OLY cameras. Just looks cheap, and sorry, but If I fork out $900 on a portrait lens I want it to look like a $900 portrait lens. If you make a grip with silver metal and black rubber to go with the silver body- fine, the silver lens works. But please try to make it all match up, visually. I detest those white Canon lenses on black bodies.. ugh! Take note, OLY.

Yeah, I bet they will eventually release a black ver, just like Sony. And yes, it will just p!ss people off. They're thinkin in terms of sales (people that want black may buy twice), but they are just going to sour people who wanted black to start with AND kill the market for new silver lenses, which will then be competing with used versions.

Can we please stop referring to 135-format as "full-frame"? It's factually wrong because 135-format cameras are not always full-frame. It's actually a fact that the Nikon FX-format sensors are the only known cameras to support a crop-sensor mode. Not to mention the fact that Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds are both full-frame formats -- despite having a smaller sensor.

You are absolutely right! I don't use the terms "full format" or "full frame" anymore. Actually all sensors are "full frame". To me it's more correct to use the size or a specific name, so: 24x36, APS (APS-C), 4/3 etc. No more "full frame" and "middle format". And please observe, I'm rather old (57), but I'm not nostalgic...

Language relies on social usage; and most everyone from producers to users refer to 35mm digital sensors as full frame. Your usage isn't wrong either, but since language isn't decided by natural law, ask yourself, if you have two different definitions of a term, and 99% use one of them, which one is most likely to communicate what you intend to?

Dark Goob is correct. Terms like full frame, FLM, and crop factor were introduced to help users of the 35mm format understand how their lenses would perform on digital bodies that had smaller image areas (sensors).If you really want to go to the origins, the term Full Frame goes back to the movie industry, where it referred to using the full gate of the film. While it was 35mm film, it was 4/3 because the film travels vertically through the gate, not horizontally. As a result, the actual image was about 18x24mm, not 24x36. In photography, the term full frame originally meant that the image circle of the lens(es) covered the entire frame, but did not exceed it. In this sense, 35mm and 4/3 are both full frame, APS-C is not. The same can be found in "medium" format cameras where image sensors are often smaller than the image circle of the lens and thus not "full frame."

I agree... Medium format cameras are also full frame, so 4x5, or 8X10 are. On the other hand I think Olympus and Panasonic lenses should have used lens nomenclature according to their "field of view"... if the 20mm 1.7 behaves like a 40mm in 135 format and the equivalences seems to be so important why not call it a 40mm?

It's really a weird focal length. I actually expected fast 17mm f1.8 or f2 (35mm FOV equivalent in 35mm camera). Also, hopefully m43 manufacturers don't forget that flash system is as important as body and lenses. "Pro-like" body and lenses, should be supported with sophisticated flash system. I would love to see Oly and Pana can compete with CaNikon with respect to lighting.

Looks like quality, but I want a black body OM-D with grip and that silver lens looks awful on the black body. Sorry, but my degree is in art and looks are almost as important as function in my book. Gotta make it in black before I will buy.

Unfortunately as I got it NEX is pretty much a dead end, quality lenses for nex system will be both too Large and too Expensive, and we have sony against both olympus and panasonic here, its 2 againt 1 ...

@ JorginhoMost of the good lenses for m4/3 were released within the last year. SONY promises at least a G and a Zeiss lens within the next 12 months.

I have no idea who comes up with the idea that E-M5's sensor is as good as 2nd gen SONY 16mp. It would be against the laws of physics for that to be true.

@ DarkShiftThe Sigma lenses are the simplified version of the ones on DP series. Since DP have very short flange distance, I would expect it to work better on NEX than m4/3. Don't know for sure. If anyone can chime in.

150/3.5 eq isn't exactly attractive. Lenses just sound more exotic in the smaller sensors. 75/1.8 sounds so much more interesting. :) Although given a real 135/3.5 on the ff or this lens, I may get this lens because of the faster shutter speed. Noise and everything else put aside.

Faster shutter speed isn't always favorable though. Say, for example, strobist work often requires working under the x-sync speed. I shot an outdoor portrait session using 70-200/2.8 @ ISO 200, F/2.8, 1/160s on my 5D2 a couple of weeks ago. Although this 75/1.8 should give similar DoF, the shutter speed will exceed sync speed by two stops. Having to work with ND filters can be troublesome.

Sorry for being unclear - the 2 stops refer to matching the DoF under even brighter conditions, instead of the parameters I was using. 5D2 does have ISO 100 for that. I recall reading it somewhere in the forums that E-M5 requires 1/200 to be clear of any shutter shadows.

Still - I am seriously considering getting the E-M5 for the size, weight and AF speed.

love_them_all: You are not making the connection between shutter speed and noise here. The 75/1.8 doesn't have "more speed, more noise" than a 150/3.5, it has EXACTLY THE SAME, it's just that the f-numbers and ISO numbers are going to be different. The image will be the same. Just like 75mm gives the same angle of view as 150mm. This is why we call them equivalent. But you need to consider "equivalent ISO sensitivity" to comprehend it completely.

The 80mm rule of thumb for portrait lenses is for full frame/35mm. The crop factor doesn't change the "compression effect" where longer local lengths make things look flatter or closer together. So the 75mm focal length here is right for that effect.

You wont get that effect anyway, thats possible only with "real" long lens. Eg. 4/3s 150mm f2 for example.

If someone likes this effect, I can recommand buying full-frame camera (5Ds are dirty cheap these days) and some fast enough (f4 or faster) 300mm lens. Or digital medium format, if someone is rich enough (or film, thats quite cheaper and 6x7 has plenty of details and huge lot of MF look :D).

Longer focal lengths tend to me more flattering for portraits. If I have enough working distance, I like to shoot between 135 to 200mm. I know one portrait photographer who shoots with a Canon 100-400, shooting at the long end, because he thinks the longer focal length is the most flattering for tight headshots. Most people like to stay around 100mm because longer focal lengths put more distance between you and your subjects, and most people like to stay closer.

"and most people like to stay closer." Indeed, I shoot lots of portraits of my Colombiana friends almost daily in my rather small hotel room here in Medellin and the Oly 45 serves beautifully (amazing lens for the price and perfect focal length for me). With this new lens I would have to climb out the window to get these shots. Of course others have different needs and this may well turn out to be a stellar lens. I just really appreciate that Oly has given us the wonderful 45 at such an affordable price

@karasumi8:actually, the only thing that affects perspective compression and expansion is distance from sensor to subject. Focal length has nothing to do with it. If you take one shot with a 12mm lens and another with a 300mm lens of a subject from the same distance, I assure you that the perspective compression is identical.

Or try cropping the 300mm frame from the 12mm shot, and display both side by side at the same size--the perspective will be the same..

Without doubts this should be a fine lens. But the trend of manufacturers providing "pre-production" units to reviewers is plainly annoying. Reviewers cautiously report abut products, the "production and proper" testing does not happen for a long time - and if any "problem" or weakness is attributed to "pre-production" unit, unlikely to be fully addressed in fully production ones. It's quite likely the early buyers will get the very same units and all the polishing will happen later (that's what the warranty is for). This is the 99% finished product (Made in Japan, they rarely turn back and start from the scratch) and if I read properly the second last sentence (written in a very politically correct voice) , it leaves me wondering if the lack of the lens hood was really the biggest concern... Or the DPR has run out of brick walls?

It is not a new trend - look back over the years and you'll see plenty of previews written based on pre-production cameras. The difference is that we now try to give some early impressions, rather than say nothing.

Pre-production samples vary and can be anything from hand-made examples to one of the first production-line test models. This can have an impact on the lag between the initial sample becoming available and one that represents the one available to customers. There's no way of knowing (and it's meaningless to speculate) how finished each example is. We do know of examples where the production process has been changed because the early samples were problematic.

In my first impressions, I've written about what I've seen. But there's no point me testing anything if I can't show the results and they might not mean anything anyway. I haven't not-written about any discoveries - trying to read between the lines to see what isn't there will only drive you mad.

Thanks Richard, appreciate you effort and it's certainly not DPR fault - manufacturers are often rushing products and these "first impressions" are just about handling, not the performance. With lenses, not much in there - optics is what counts. As if it would make any difference manufacturers waiting another few weeks and handing over "early production" unit, which would be fair. You guys dance as they play and I wish you were allowed to post "pre-production" samples as well (no full tests, just some meaningful shots comparable later with production units). The folk would understand they are not production ....and I just can't imagine you juggling this lens from hand to hand and not shooting "something". DPR should be able to make these early comments (good or bad), not just give a politically correct speech - it does not represent the final product. This way, reviewers just got manipulated into pre-order game - and that is IMO the dishonest part played by manufacturers. Thx

Exactly my thought.The panasonic 14-42mm X is a most prominent example for this tactic - it's been going through the media for i think months before any solid image samples appeared.Oh look: turns out afterwards the promised 'X-quality' is non existent plus the lens is flawed.

Google Photos is adding a few pet-friendly features that will make it easier to find photos of your favorite pooch. Now, you can organize your pet photos by facial recognition, and you can even search your library by breed.

The Nikon D850 is a 45.7MP full-frame DSLR with an autofocus system lifted wholesale from the pro-sports focused D5. 4K capture, continuous shooting at 7 or 9 frames per second make it sound like the ultimate all rounder. Is it all that these specs suggest?

DxO has announced version 3.0 of the iOS app for its 'One' connected camera. It adds support for multi-camera Facebook Live broadcasting and both time-lapse still and video capture. Android users will be pleased to hear that a One for their platform is on the way, as well. Several new accessories are available, including a battery pack.

Canon has introduced the PowerShot G1 X Mark III, which borrows the 24MP APS-C sensor and Dual Pixel AF system from the company's recent mirrorless and DSLR cameras, adds a 24-72mm equiv., F2.8-5.6 lens and puts them into a lightweight body – but it'll cost you quite a bit.

It's not often that we see a genuinely interesting compact camera, and the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III is one such beast. We've pulled out the top features of the camera and tell you why they matter – and put the Mark III up against the competition.

Canon's 28mm F2.8 IS USM may be small in size, but it's big on fun. We wrote about our experience using it as our only lens in Big Sur, California, but in case you missed out on our full gallery, take a look to see what this little lens can do.

It's not exactly a revolutionary device, but the iPhone 8 Plus does promise some evolutionary updates in the camera department. DPR contributor Jeff Carlson has been putting the 8 Plus to the test in some everyday shooting situations – take a look at how it fared.

This week in Hollywood, DJI introduced its new Zenmuse X7 camera, a Super 35 format cinema camera of its own design that can also capture 24MP still images in APS-C format. Is it time to start thinking of DJI as a camera company?

The Nikon D850 isn't the first camera to hit triple digits on DxOMark; in fact, the Pentax 645Z was listed at 101 all the way back in 2015. So why was the full review never published? DxOMark explained earlier today.